We go through your app from sign-in to payments and hand you a ranked list of what to fix.
One working app and read-only access
App: One working app.
Repository: One code repository.
Backend: One Supabase project.
Access: Read only access.
Twelve checks across six paths
Sign in stays contained.
Records stay with the right account.
Secrets stay out of the client.
Files stay within their boundary.
Charges finish as expected.
Payment handoffs arrive once.
Functions fail clearly.
Errors leave a trail.
The build arrives intact.
Operations show the problem.
Handoffs reach their owner.
A recovery path exists.
You leave with a clear launch decision
A report that ranks the findings by severity. The worst problems come first.
Findings in plain language. Each finding says what could go wrong and why it matters.
A recorded walkthrough. We walk you through the report on a recording you can replay.
The scope and next steps in writing. You get the next steps in writing after the walkthrough.
Some work needs its own engagement
Code changes belong to a separate engagement.
Formal penetration testing calls for a dedicated security engagement.
Compliance certification requires its own assessment.
UX design and load testing remain outside the agreed launch path.
The report can become a repair plan
A Hardening Sprint fixes what the review finds, and the report stays useful whoever does the repair.
Questions we hear first
Which apps suit this review?
This review is for a working Supabase app built with a rapid-development tool. We confirm the stack before agreeing scope.
Do you make changes during the review?
The review is read-only. When findings call for repair, a separate Hardening Sprint gives that work its own scope.
What access do you need?
We agree the minimum read-only access for the repository and Supabase project before work begins. Keep passwords, API keys, and customer data out of the intake form.
What happens if the app needs a rebuild?
If the app needs a rebuild, the report says so and explains why.